Devendrasinh Roopsinh Rana vs Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 738 Guj

     C/LPA/414/2017                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 414 of 2017
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21880 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA         sd/-
 and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK sd/-
=============================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                 NO
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          NO

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of             NO
      the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of             NO
      law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
      India or any order made thereunder ?

==============================================================
                        DEVENDRASINH ROOPSINH RANA
                                   Versus
                      DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER & 1 other(s)
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR NAVALDAN R LANGA(2943) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==============================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                       Date : 21/01/2022
                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1.0. Heard Mr. N R Langa, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. HS Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent.

2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.21880

C/LPA/414/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2022

of 2016 the workman who was working as a driver with the respondent has preferred this intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3.0. The record indicates that in the year 1992, the appellant- original petitioner was charged with using abusive language against an officer when he was asked to discharge his duty at particular place. The record indicates that after full-fledged inquiry and the departmental proceedings charges against the petitioner were held to have been proved and such proceedings were culminated into order of penalty of reduction of three increments and in fact the same came to be implemented as well. The appellant- original petitioner approached the learned Labour Court, Rajkot by way of Reference after 7 years i.e. in the year 2003, which came to be numbered as Reference (IT) No. 92 of 2003. After considering the evidence on record, more particularly, Exh.11 before the Labour Court whereby the appellant gave up the challenge to the legality of the inquiry proceedings and only challenged the finding thereof, the Labour Court after appreciation of evidence on record was pleased to dismiss the Reference. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.21880 of 2016, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order and same is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4.0. Mr. Langa, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant has already retired since four years and the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge ought to have reduced the punishment. Mr. Langa further contended that both

C/LPA/414/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2022

the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have mainly dismissed the proceedings before it on the ground of delay and on the aforesaid ground, Mr. Langa contended that the impugned judgment and order be modified and the reduction of three increments may be reduced.

5.0. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents opposed this appeal. Mr. Munshaw contended that the charges of using abusive language has been duly proved and same is examined by the Labour Court. Mr. Munshaw contended that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the punishment is harsh and / or disproportionate. Mr. Munshaw also further contended that delay of 7 years is vital aspect as by that time the punishment of reduction of three increments was already implemented by the Corporation. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Munshaw contended that the appeal being meritless, same deserves to be dismissed.

6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Labour court passed in Reference (IT) No. 92 of 2003, at the outset, it deserves to be noted that by Exh.11, departmental proceedings were not challenged by the appellant but only findings were challenged before the Labour Court. On perusal of the said award, we find that the Labour Court has also examined the aspect of proportionality of punishment imposed upon the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also rightly considered the aspect of delay. It deserves to be noted that the order was passed in departmental proceeding in the year 1996 whereas the Reference was filed by the appellant in the year 2003. The

C/LPA/414/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2022

Reference was decided on 28.6.2013 and the writ petition was filed after two and half years i.e. in the year 2017. The learned Single Judge has committed no error in not entertaining the petition and has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no substance found in the petition. Even otherwise, we find that the punishment imposed cannot be in any terms considered to be disproportionate or harsh. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant had not challenged the departmental proceedings, the said aspect is not necessary to be examined by this Court in this appeal. In totality of facts, grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be negatived. Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

sd/-

(R.M.CHHAYA,J)

sd/-

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD